Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Rhatahema's page

293 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would suggest handling it with circumstance modifiers. For instance, say the character succeeds on a perception check to hear a distant call from some creature. If they wanted to ID the creature based on its call, you might up the knowledge DC by +2 for identifying through sound only, and +2 for the difficulty hearing the noise. Keep note of the character's check, and when they encounter that same creature up close, compare that check to the lower DC to see if they learn any additional information.

Some creatures have distinctive sounds, smells, silhouettes, etc., others don't. I'd adjust DCs on the fly and most of all keep things simple. If it's important for the creature's identity to remain a mystery, up the DC liberally. If not, up the DC by less.

The boost to Dragon Ferocity is welcome! 1.5xSTR+.5xSTR meant you lost damage from rounding down odd strength modifiers, compared to x2. So good news! I hope we can get more clarification on Tiger Claw down the road (multiple unarmed strikes as a single attack).

While on the subject of ability modifiers and stacking bonuses, do you have any input on conflicting modifiers? For instance, if one ability reduces your modifier and another increases it simultaneously (Flurry of Blows and the Two-Handed Fighter's backswing come to mind, though there might be other cases), which should take precedence?

Joe M. wrote:
(Dragon Style and Tiger Claw[?] will need language adjustments, but that was bound to happen to something with as contentious an FAQ topic as this one, and don't really look as important as the antipaladin effect.)

Dragon Style actually works fine. It changes your strength modifier to damage from x1 to x1.5. Dragon Ferocity is what this FAQ breaks. You're right about Tiger Claws.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Now to explain taking Mark Gone Wild multiple times--

...Choosing the second option twice doesn't stack with itself because Mark Gone Wild is a same source of both untyped bonuses. Additionally, they don't stack with choosing the sixth option twice, for the same reason...

So, by this logic, a class feature that grants you an untyped bonus to AC and an untyped bonus to AC equal to an ability modifier wouldn't stack, because they're from the same source? That sounds a bit like...

Monk: AC Bonus (Ex) wrote:
When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC and CMD at 4th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every four monk levels thereafter, up to a maximum of +5 at 20th level.

Mark Seifter wrote:
I've found, when looking over more sources, that it's rather the reverse. The discontinuity is between several size Small and Medium manufactured weapons, as d8 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 or d8 -> d10 -> 2d8 are ubiquitous elsewhere, and each have multiple progressions that source them. In fact, deal with the Small to Medium manufactured weapon thing (or "#1") and I can propose to the rest of the PDT an elegant and concise solution that covers all cases in the rules and changes more-or-less nothing else.

The thing that bothers me about this pair of progressions is that 1d10 reduces to 1d8, while 1d8 otherwise increases to 2d6. That's odd, and ideally the sequence would run the same forwards as backwards. But it seems like an inescapable problem so long as two separate damage progressions exist.

I'd prefer to see all weapons shift to the 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 2d6 progression, and ditch the 2d8->3d8->4d8 progression all together. To me, streamlining weapon damage dice into a single progression would be worth the overall nerf. That said, I can see why that isn't a feasible change. It'd build a mountain of errata, and is the kind of thing you do between editions.

Kared wrote:

Does this mean that monks can grab feats that require full bab but only use them while flurrying? If TWF feats from flurry counts for prereqs then why not bab.

And tbh, a lot of people want monks to have full bab anyway...

No. The class feature addresses this specifically.

Flurry of Blows wrote:
For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

The FAQ does elaborate that power attack and similar feats still work off the modified BAB though.

2: Well, the feat states right off the bat that it requires a full-round action. Seems clear enough, but maybe I'm missing something.

1,3-7: Nope*6.

No developer response on these questions to my knowledge. I'd give my opinion on how to run it, but I'm sure you've read plenty of them. Still waiting for the final draft of Pummeling Style. :)

Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Again, you're not listening. I'm talking about a feat that you get as a bonus feat for the archtype that doesn't even operate except in specific circumstances, and which you don't even meet the perquisites for.

I was listening, but I was focused on brawler's flurry, and missed the point about the odd bonus feat mechanics of shield master.

Throw Shield wrote:
...At 11th level, a shield champion gains Shield Master as a bonus feat. She must meet all prerequisites before selecting that feat.

I agree that this is unintuitive. First, that you need to qualify before "selecting" a feat you're given without option. Second, automatically receiving a bonus feat that you may not qualify for. It's one thing to select permanent feats that build off temporary feats on your own initiative, but to be handed a high tier feat and have to work backwards is odd. I'd have rather seen them offer any feat in the chain at that level, or have them rolled into brawler's flurry, or just give it to you without meeting the prerequisites.

Still, I don't think that's a problem with martial versatility or brawler's flurry. I think it's a problem with the archetype overcomplicating things.

Rushley son of Halum wrote:

Ok, lets start by looking at shield master.

As a feat it requires both shield slam and two-weapon fighting before you can use it. The brawler picks it up as a bonus feat at level 11 but can only use it if they meet the prereqs. So already we're having to sink a feat into shield slam.

Now look at what Shield Master actually does. So the enhancement bonus only works during flurry? And if I don't take shield slam it just flat out doesn't work at all?

That's my main problem. It's just a very odd chain of issues culminating in something that makes little sense.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your problem. So you've take the Shield Master feat chain without taking TWF as a feat, relying on brawler's flurry to gain the feat. So you can only use Shield Master to add the shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls during a flurry... In what way is this nonsense? It's just a special way of attacking with your shield, not a something inherent to your character (ex: eldritch heritage). I don't think it's a stretch to see it as part of the flurrying technique.

And you're not required to skip taking two-weapon fighting. If you want to take the feat to have access to shield master all the time, then use flurry to get the extra attacks from ITWF or GTWF, you still have that option.

Kosstheboss wrote:
...This is a single attack roll, regardless of the number of times a d20 is being rolled. It clearly states that you are making a number of rolls EQUAL to the number of attacks, not making multiple attack rolls. Each roll that "hits" is qualifying an amount of damage the attack will ultimately do....

So, it clearly states you're making a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks, adding your attack bonus to each, and comparing it to the target's AC to deal damage. But they're not attack rolls. Sounds a lot like an attack roll to me. And if it's not, what would you roll? Nothing says you roll a d20. Maybe it's a d100.

I understand your reasoning based on the wording, but I think it's a mistake to think we can find the truth of how this feat works if we just read the rules close enough. Sometimes a rule needs elaboration to work. Typically, 1 attack roll = 1 attack. Options that apply to an attack or attack roll generally assume this is the case. When an ability defies that convention, it needs to explain exactly how, which pummeling style doesn't.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

From a post made by Jason Bulmahn back during the playtest. The relevant bit:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
I just think thats a really bizzare way for it to operate and doesn't sound like as intended. Either we have a feat or we don't. It shouldn't be conditional.

I don't see how conditional feats are at all complicated, and as stated, martial versatility revolves around the idea. I also consider it a big improvement over the language of flurry of blows, which works as if you were using a feat.

That fuel isn't considered ammunition could have been intentional. There might be options available for ammunition that the developer didn't want extending to flamethrower tanks.

That said, If you're willing to bend the rules to make it work as ammunition, you might as well extend those rules in a way that's intuitive and balanced.

As a house rule, I would treat each charge of oil and propellant as a unit of ammunition, and the tanks as the container. So if you wanted masterwork or magic ammunition, you'd pay the cost of six units per fuel tank. If you wanted to use abundant ammunition, cast it on the fuel tanks as say it refills the fuel that's been expended each round. The flames produced by the weapon are no longer ammunition, so there should be no worries about them disappearing the next round.

Not sure how much of the weight of the tanks are container and how much is fuel, but you could also break down the weight so that the tank becomes lighter the more fuel you expend. Maybe 4.lbs for the tanks and 6.lbs per charge?

Brawler's Flurry isn't Flurry of Blows. Besides the name, the mechanics are fundamentally different. Unless it's stated somewhere that it counts as such, then I'm sure it doesn't qualify as flurry of blows for any prerequisites.

Stacking monk and sacred fist levels for flurry I agree makes sense, but isn't strictly supported by the rules.

Liam Warner wrote:
I like to world build and being able to put a number of thiis kind of thing helps.

I get where you're coming from, but in practice, it's as the above posters say. When you've got a party of 16th level PCs, you're going to want more than 6 NPCs in the entire nation that can match their power. The party will meet roughly the same number of NPCs each level, so you'll end up stating about as many legendary NPCs as you do standard, assuming a 1-20 campaign.

That said, if you're just looking to have a better grasp of the level distribution in your own setting, I would start by figuring out the demographics of a given nation. Here's a link relating to that. Haven't read much of it, but it looks thorough! Anyway, once you've figured out the demographics, you can start assigning each occupation an average level depending on their clout/capability. Do some math and you'll know the overall level distribution of a nation, and a have clearer picture of what the numbers represent.

A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

If you have a custom item with multiple magic abilities, the caster level would be the minimum needed to cast the highest level spell associated with the item.

By the way, even though a 3rd level caster could reasonably meet the DC to craft a particular item, the main prohibiting factor is cost. A +6 belt of physical perfection costs 77k to craft, and the party will likely have an assortment of lower level gear that will take priority.

Bolt Ace should be able to pull off two-weapon fighting with crossbows pretty simply.

Inexplicable Reload (Ex): At 11th level, loading a crossbow becomes unthinking and automatic for a bolt ace. As long as she has at least 1 grit point, she always starts each round of combat (even a surprise round) with her crossbow loaded. Also the amount of time needed to reload a crossbow decreases by one step: a standard action becomes a move action, a move action becomes a swift action, a swift action becomes a free action, and a free action becomes not an action.

If you can get the reload time down to not an action, you're no longer taking an action to reload your crossbow, making TWF viable. If you're worried there is no explanation for how you'd reload your crossbows without a free hand, consider the ability is named inexplicable reload.

I lean towards saying no. Not well read on the technology guild, but from a quick search, slow-firing firearms are generally unconventional weapons. They require a full-round action to use, which means you're not even taking the attack action (a standard action). As such, I would assume that the full-round action required to use slow-firing weapons prevents them from being used as a part of other actions (like Dead Shot, Vital Strike, etc).

shroudb wrote:
i'm not arguing that those things can't be done. what i'm arguing is that they can be done without any consious effort (free actions outside of your initiative order).

Fair enough. I guess what it comes down to for me is that, besides rules simplicity and balance, that I have higher expectations of Pathfinder characters than real life fighters. Compared to everything else a character can potentially accomplish, allowing someone to choose not to dodge a flask thrown at them unexpectedly doesn't seem far fetched. If you wanted some additional restrictions, maybe a perception check to notice it in time, or maybe it provokes if they let their guard down for that second (this actually seems most in line with the rules logic to me).

Not to derail, but this is also an area where the game rules are just lacking. For example, suppose you wanted to simulate a boxing match where one competitor wants to throw the match. Ideally, the player should be allowed to alternate between attempting to defend themselves and allowing some blows to hit. Pulling some punches, attempting to deliver others, and bluffing the crowd into thinking he's trying his best with every move. As is, if you punch, it's got to be full strength modifier, full dice rolled. If you wanted to be punched, you'd still have to try to dodge it. And if you wanted to "deceive someone" (the other boxer and crowd), the action is at least 1 round, which would mean you could only convince them while not throwing punches (assuming bluff covers nonverbal deception).

With all the extraordinary things a character can do in combat (potentially dodge a 20ft radius fireball centered on them without getting burnt), I don't see why realism becomes such a huge issue in this instance.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aldarionn wrote:

It should also be noted that certain monster attacks that deal large numbers of dice of damage CAN be modified by Vital Strike. Eye Rays for example are activated using the attack action (See the Jabberwock), so if the monster has an Eye Ray that does, say, 15d6 damage and Greater Vital Strike he could use the two together for a total of 60d6 damage.

Kingmaker spoilers:
** spoiler omitted **

Odd that it calls this tactic out in Kingmaker. By the rules I'm reading, it shouldn't be possible

Eye Rays (Su) wrote:
The jabberwock can project beams of fire from its eyes as a ranged touch attack as a standard action, with a range increment of 60 feet.

That's definitely not an attack action. Unless I'm missing something, the AP writer seems to have made a mistake.

Whatever your interpretation of the rules logic of combat in Pathfinder, I'd still expect a GM to look at situations on a case by case basis and rule with balance in consideration. To that end, do you really want it to be disproportionately difficult for the alchemist to use his healing bombs on the party tank? No one is demanding a successful touch attack to grant an ally a cure spell.

MurphysParadox wrote:
Generally, I just reduce it to an AC or CMD 10 check to do something to a willing target.
Matthew Downie wrote:
We don't require to-hit rolls for PCs who want to be hit by touch spells from friendly characters - they aren't trying to evade, so no attack roll is needed. Doing the same at range shouldn't be much harder.

Agreed with this. It should still require an attack roll to hit because it's a ranged attack. A bad throw, concealment, a strong wind, or unsteady surface can still cause the thrower to miss. But if a target wants to be hit by something, it shouldn't be that hard. If he's able to dodge an attack, why shouldn't he be able to move directly into the path of the attack using the same effort? I don't agree that a character should be required to lower their defenses for an entire round so they can willingly be hit by a single attack.

Yeah, you don't need racial heritage to select a small sized Aasimar or Tiefling. Unfortunately, Scion of Humanity is the only means of actually grabbing racial heritage to count as the race you're thematically descended from. For home games, a GM might be persuaded to allow other humanoid subtypes (Scion of Halfingity?).

Agreed that you shouldn't use this in PFS. I wouldn't use this weapon at all without rewriting it. It's just terribly written. Besides that, from a quick bit of research, it doesn't bear much similarity to how the weapon was used either. The ring was used to disarm, entangle, or trip, not to hurt someone through blunt force, and the blade doesn't seem to have been thrown at all. So I'd pick something else for a throwing build.

I'd recommend starting a thread in the House Rules forum rather than derailing a 3 year old rules questions thread.

I don't remember any special rules for firing from a boat. Might not have transferred to Pathfinder, but I think the 3.5 DMG suggested applying a +2 or -2 circumstance modifier as it's general rule to handle these type of situations.

Kazumetsa_Raijin wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
PRD, Combat wrote:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

Well that settles that. Thank you for the cite too!

It doesn't count against a Full Attack, correct? A Full Attack is just a special composure of a Standard+Movement in a sense?

Not quite. A full-attack is a full-round action. You can perform free actions and swift actions during a full-round action. Search (ctrl+f) the combat section of the PRD for these terms to gain a better understanding. Some of the rules are a bit scattered on that page. :)

PRD, Combat wrote:
You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action.

Agreed with the others, though I'll say the language could be more precise. I don't think substituting the damage die before applying enhancements to the weapon is contrary to the rules, just that the interpretation is probably further from the intent.

The reason I'd play a rogue over a ninja is to take some of the neat rogue archetypes that ninja doesn't qualify for. Knife Master and Skulking Slayer provide a meaningful bump to sneak attack damage, Thug and Charlatan have already been mentioned. The damage potential of a sneak attack build can be very competitive, it's just their attack bonus that brings them down (and immunity to critical hits/sneak attack). That said, most rogue archetypes make for good dips. Unlike ninja, I can't think of many reasons to take it to 20.

If you do go with ninja, I would take the scout archetype. Adding sneak attack on a charge combined with invisibility and flanking should give you plenty of opportunities.

Sissyl wrote:
Bombs. A physical object that you apparently can't carry more than X of, and there is literally no way for anyone else to use them.

I feel that a lot of that could be remedied by expanding on the nature of their "magical power". Real world alchemy has plenty of exotic ideas that could be drawn on to explain the expenditure of that vaguely described energy. But if you're playing them from more of a chemist angle it's hard to accept.

And on the topic of vaguely defined magic abilities, bard. The bard's spells are supposedly picked up through travel (right?), implying it's learned. But they cast spontaneously, something associated with inborn ability. I'm also not sure why divine casting isn't an option for them in Pathfinder. Inspiring by invoking the divine seems pretty intuitive.

Something else that comes to mind lately is sneak attack, and the way it favors multiple attacks. The ability is supposed to represent targeting an enemy's vitals and making a strategic strike. But it turns out you're better off putting a knife in each hand and swinging away like a madman rather than trying to make a single strike count.

Agreed that it's unclear, and that the name of the style is misleading. Pummeling Style isn't Clustered Shots and it isn't Dead Shot. What's considered a "normal amount of damage" is also a bit up in the air. Where the feat fails is its lack of specificity. There's so little precedent for making multiple rolls to hit for a single attack that most rules don't even account for the possibility. So lots of room for interpretation.

That said, I'm inclined to think this works similarly to Dead Shot. Dead Shot has you make multiple attack rolls for a single attack, and has similar rules on critical hit confirmation. Anything on the target's end that's triggered on-hit would be triggered once and applied to the entire full-attack (miss chance/mirror image/etc.) In the same way that dead shot represents careful aim, pummeling style represents focusing on a single punch. Poor naming will just have to be forgiven. :)

Undone wrote:
Rhatahema wrote:
Undone wrote:
I do get the 1 style at a time thing (For non MoMS monks) but the "You must spend your first swift action" thing seems silly. What if it's a surprise round? (Kicking in the door) do you get to activate it?

Yes. You can take a swift action at any point you could take a free action (though only once per round) and can take free actions in a surprise round.

I would house rule that out of combat, a style feat lasts for one round when activated. So even if you took a swift action every round to activate your style prior to combat, you'd still need to take a swift action to activate it on your first turn of combat, after which it'd have the usual duration.

Which is permanent FOR THE DAY. Meaning it consumes 1 swift/day.

Where does it state the style feat lasts "for the day"? It states "the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style." If you're only going to look at that statement, you activate it once and it persists for the rest of time, even while you sleep.

I was going by what I consider the intent, which is for the style to end when combat ends, since you can't use a style feat until combat begins. My house rule was just aiming for a compromise between the intended action cost of entering a style and the occasional need to use a style feat outside of combat.

Undone wrote:
I do get the 1 style at a time thing (For non MoMS monks) but the "You must spend your first swift action" thing seems silly. What if it's a surprise round? (Kicking in the door) do you get to activate it?

Yes. You can take a swift action at any point you could take a free action (though only once per round) and can take free actions in a surprise round.

I would house rule that out of combat, a style feat lasts for one round when activated. So even if you took a swift action every round to activate your style prior to combat, you'd still need to take a swift action to activate it on your first turn of combat, after which it'd have the usual duration.

Toirin wrote:
I see how someone could read this class ability that way. I read it that the levels stack, but a Sandman bard's levels count as 1/5 progression whereas a ninja, vivisectionist, or rogue would count as 1/2 per level. So I would go for it if you had 3 levels of sandman bard and 2 levels of vivisectionist that you would get 2d6 sneak. If not that is an interesting ability that previously did not have much importance because of the limited sneak progressions. The ACG changes things though.

Fractional sneak attack progression sounds like a solid house rule, but the snakebite striker (brawler) has an irregular progression. +1d6 SA at 1st, 6th, 10th, 12th, and 20th level. Likewise, nature fang (druid) gets +1d6 only once at 4th level.

I noticed the same thing. It's even more intense when you look at the Nature Fang (druid), which gets only +1d6 sneak attack. Other classes that are affected are the Sandman (bard) and Sanctified Slayer (Inquisitor). Which isn't even getting into whether or not the ability counts prestige classes as classes, which is really besides the point.

To clarity the interpretation for those who might not understand: Rather than stacking sneak attack from multiple sources as usual, with the Vivisectionist class feature you instead add the levels of all classes you possess that grant sneak attack and use that total as your effective rogue level to determine your sneak attack damage.

The best house rule I can come up with is to either say that the special stacking rules of the vivisectionist only apply to classes with sneak attack progressions identical to the rogue's; all other sources of sneak attack are added as usual.

I'm on the fence. "For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage" I'd think that "normal amount of damage" refers to how much damage you would deal if you hit them as part of a full-attack, meaning sneak attack would apply to each hit. Though "normal" is poor wording. Clustered Shots is multiple attacks, so it's simple. Dead Shot tells you exactly what does or doesn't get added after each successful attack roll, so it's also relatively simple. Pummeling Style isn't so clear.

AndIMustMask wrote:
does it have the semicolon meaning you only need one of the three? otherwise you need BAB 6 AND one of either brawler flurry or flurry for it, unfortunately.
Pummeling Style wrote:
Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.

Sushewakka wrote:
I have a question for all the people saying that, by RAI, it should only work with unarmed strikes: The Brawler's Flurry works not only with unarmed strikes, but also with weapons of the Close group and with shields. Pummeling strike lists "flurry of blows OR brawler's flurry" in its prerrequisites. Considering the brawler's flurry has weapon attacks baked in, how can it be that RAI doesn't include weapons?

The prerequisite you're thinking of is "base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature." You can qualify without flurry of blows or brawler's flurry.

I agree with the above poster. You would only meet the feats' prerequisites while using brawler's flurry, and thus couldn't use them any other time, but they would still persist for the usual duration. A relevant quote from the playtest:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:
• A brawler can use the feats granted by brawler's flurry to qualify for other feats, but can only use those other feats when using brawler's flurry (as that's the only time she actually meets those prerequisites).

Wow, what a mess. I've always went with the interpretation that every additional hand a creature possess grants an additional off-hand attack, assuming each limb works at the same capacity as a normal limb. It's how it was handled in 3.5 anyway. It's an intuitive system until you introduce armor spikes, flurry, kicks, and other mechanics that broaden the definition of an "off-hand". I also lean towards the idea that multi-weapon fighting replaces two-weapon fighting in all instances for a creature with three or more hands (including other feat prerequisites and benefits).

That said, it sounds like the problem has less to do with the rules for multi-weapon fighting and more with a book handing player characters a means of getting 22 functional arms and hands. PC races with 4 arms are scarce for a reason. So however the rules are written, I'm sure we'll see it nerfed (preferably through errata). I wouldn't mind seeing the number of off-hands an eidolon can utilize limited by the restriction on maximum natural attacks. That sounds fair to me.

From what I can tell there's no written answer as to how these two abilities interact. The as-written interpretation of each ability is that you add twice your strength modifier as a bonus to damage on top of everything else. Though that's obviously not the intent, and as Secret Wizard points out, you're required to read what's implied for it to work as intended. But I think the answer is a little uncertain.

It could read "instead of your usual strength bonus to damage.", or more specifically "instead of 1.5x your strength bonus to damage." In either case the two abilities wouldn't stack.

On the other hand, if you're going add clarifying text to communicate intent, it could just as easily be ", +50% over your usual strength bonus to damage for wielding a weapon two-handed."

I would guess the former, more conservation interpretation if asked how Paizo would answer. That said, I prefer the clarity of adding percentages instead of altering multipliers. For instance, in another thread there was debate over using the two-handed fighter's backswing during a flurry of blows. Both are legal to use together, but flurry changes the strength modifier multiplier for two-handed weapons to x1, while backswing changes it to x2. It's an unresolvable conflict since they're of equal specificity compared to the general rule. Percentage based wording probably would have avoided the issue.

I think James Jacobs has stated that alchemists originally received spells, but that the flavor just didn't fit, so it was changed to extracts. Their differences weren't devised as a point of game balance but according to the theme of the class. If the Advanced Players Guide had a chapter on magic (as the Core Rulebook does), we might have gotten clearer, more elaborate rules on extracts, instead of it being crammed into a single class feature. I think the inconsistencies arose from the FAQ making rulings on a case by case basis, instead of looking at the class as a whole.


Alchemy wrote:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level.

Yes, Alchemy is labeled as a supernatural ability and extracts are listed under that class feature, but that class feature is an overcrowded mess. It's really not the intent that you treat extracts like supernatural abilities, as suggested by them being treated like spells in most every way.

No, your sanctified slayer levels would not count towards your judgement total. If you've completely traded out the judgement class feature, then the class no longer grants the judgement ability.

That's the way I'm reading it. Pretty rad!

I'd say it stacks.

Of the two arguments that it doesn't, I think double-dipping the same stat is the weakest. If this were a divine spell that allowed you to add your wisdom modifier to AC as a deflection bonus, there would be no question. That the same stat modifier can't be utilized for different bonuses to the same value is a new unwritten rule made in reaction to a perceived imbalance. No one really raises it as an issue when the benefits seem balanced with the resource investment.

That they share the same name and similar mechanics is a better argument, but still insufficient since they provide different benefits (an untyped bonus to AC and a deflection bonus to AC).

I also think it's possible the class features were intended to stack. They used the same text as the monk's AC bonus, but swapped an untyped bonus for a deflection bonus, which overlaps with a ring of protection and thus mitigates the potential AC boost you can get from dipping. Not saying that's probable, just possible.

Nefreet wrote:

You say that it isn't written anywhere that Swashbuckler Weapon Training works like Weapon Training, and that the former doesn't reference the latter. It seems that you are basing your "no" answer off of these facts.

But where is it stated in the FAQ that this must be the case?


FAQ wrote:
If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability.
Nefreet wrote:

But I'd argue that Swashbuckler Weapon Training still mirrors the standard Weapon Training close enough that it should count for things such as Gloves of Dueling.

Otherwise, what good is the FAQ?

Without the FAQ, we would be lost in a dark sea of case-by-case rulings based on intuition, rules logic, and balance. Truly a nightmare. (though seriously, I think allowing it is fair)

Mattastrophic wrote:
Here's a question... how does Weapon Training work when you have a multiclassed Swashbuckler/Fighter?

If swashbuckler weapon training is not the same ability as weapon training (and I would say it isn't), then they stack as completely separate class features. They wouldn't interact.

Nefreet wrote:
How is "Swashbuckler Weapon Training" not a "more specific version" of "Weapon Training"?

The FAQ never answers "Yes" to the question of whether a "more specific version" of an ability counts as that ability. It answers that "It depends" and then lists the conditions to qualify. The description and game mechanics of Swashbuckler Weapon Training never state that it works like weapon training, and you never make a selection as you would through weapon training, so it misses both opportunities to qualify.

I'll say that naming it "Swashbuckler Weapon Training" was needlessly confusing. If it counts as weapon training, they should have said so. And if not, it should have been named something totally different, like Finesse Training.

It does get tiring arguing for interpretations I find counter-intuitive and irrelevant to game balance though. :)

That looks like a solid rules interpretation to me. In fact, I'd say that use of ride-by-attack follows the rules clearer than its intended function (which defies the requirement that you move directly towards the target).

You can definitely take a swift action at any point during a charge. You can take a swift action at any time you could take a free action (though obviously only once per turn).

Spring attack in this case wouldn't help even if the tiger had the feat, as the full-round action required to spring attack prevents the tiger from taking the full-round action needed to charge (and thus use pounce).

Here's a link to the FAQ clarifying. Confusing, I know, but attacks of opportunity are their own kind of action.

No. bbangerter is correct.

I'd say no, based on the parameters of the FAQ, since the ability never references weapon training in its description. Since the developer acknowledged that restriction in the playtest and still didn't include language that states otherwise in the final release, I lean towards thinking it was intentional. We might still see an item that builds off that class feature in a future book.

I don't think allowing it to count as weapon training would be unbalanced though. On the other hand, a three level dip into weapon master isn't terrible either.

1 to 50 of 293 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.